holding plaintiff not excused from filing a 20 BROWN V. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, ET AL. 1:17CV144 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 60], OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [DKT. NO. 63], AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1] certificate of merit because he had not established the applicable standard of care for the diagnosis and treatment of his broken hand
How later courts described this case
- holding plaintiff not excused from filing a 20 BROWN V. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, ET AL. 1:17CV144 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 60], OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [DKT. NO. 63], AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1] certificate of merit because he had not established the applicable standard of care for the diagnosis and treatment of his broken hand
- rejecting plaintiff’s claim that the alleged delay in treating his fracture fell within the exception of 55-7B-6(c) and noting “[a] court shall require expert testimony except where the ‘lack of care or want of skill is so gross, so as to be apparent, or the alleged breach relates to noncomplex matters of diagnosis and treatment within the understanding of lay jurors by resort to common knowledge and experience.’”
- rejecting plaintiff’s claim that the alleged delay in treating his fracture fell within the exception of 55-7B-6(c
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie D. Morris appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and dismissing his action filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and agree that Morris failed to comply with the requirements set forth in W. Va.Code Ann. § 55-7B-6 (LexisNexis 2008). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Morris v. United States, No. 3:12-cv-00073-GMG-DJJ, 2012 WL 6048936 (N.D.W.Va. Dec. 5, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be *206 fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.